Lord Stevens, a former UK police chief, is quoted as saying that only three out of 210 terrorist suspects he arrested in a probe in Northern Ireland were not working for either the police, the security service MI5 or the UK Army.

On 21 December 2011, we learn that the IRA was run by the UK security services.

Former British spy Kevin Fulton reported that "the real reason why the Real IRA murderers who planted the bomb at Omagh, have never been taken to court or their cases investigated - it is because the actual bomber, Sean Hoey, was also working for the RUC (the police)". (MI5 & the IRA!)

"In 2006, the Guardian reported that, two British agents were central to the bombings of three army border installations in 1990, the claims included tactics known as the human bomb, which involved forcing civilians to drive vehicles laden with explosives into army checkpoints, this tactic was the brainchild of British intelligence.

"In 2006, it was also revealed that, a former British Army mole in the IRA has claimed that MI5 arranged a weapons buying trip to America in which he obtained detonators, later used by terrorists to murder soldiers and police officers, and British intelligence co-operated with the FBI, to ensure his trip to New York in the 1990s went ahead without incident, so that his cover would not be blown." (MI5 & the IRA!)

The pseudo gang works for the military but pretends to be a bunch of terrorists.

The idea of the 'pseudo gang' is to carry out acts of violence which can then be blamed on the people that the military wants to discredit.Pseudo gangs have been used in Vietnam, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, the Philippines, Kenya, Malaya, Northern Ireland, Iraq, New York and many other places.

Reportedly, the white Rhodesians used pseudo gangs to bomb churches (and murder missionaries) and blame the violence on black guerrillas.

....Malaysia is a success story, and by 2020 hopes to become a MEDC country with a per capita income of over $30,000. The country is a NIC, with a per Capita income of $15000 by PPP, currently.

The country is lucky to have enjoyed stability and continuity with the additional advantage of able incorruptible visionary leaders such as Mohammad Mahatir. He has some links to India family wise, which makes the country more intriguing for me.

Malaysia is the potential of what the whole of South Asia can be.........with its vast pool of human talent, exemplified starkly and clearly by the South Asian business community in the UK.

The hindrance to such human potential is as always the corrupt ineffective mafia-ridden State, and foreign powers with less charitable ideas for the country.

The abysmal and catastrophic colonial rule in South Asia were never repeated in Malaysia, save for shades of it during the 1950's Malay emergency, to prevent a minority from usurping power.

Thus Malaysia with its mineral assets (which the DRC also has) was allowed to slowly develop.

Of course patronizing a smaller country is always easier for an active, aggressive colonial power such as the UK, than a vast one with huge true historically proven potential. For much of history India was either number one or two economically along with China. Goldman Sacks projects the Chinese economy will reach the value of $45 trillion and the Indian economy $28 trillion by 2050.

Both countries recovering from the ravages of Western colonialism gradually, successfully, together. Contrary to popular belief China is India's biggest trading partner.

But sadly Western colonialism has not ended, and now promotes itself under the power of the USA, with its 1000 military bases around the world; $1500 billion unofficial security budget and a central government policy of permanent war.

The process of the USA converting from an aggressively independent minded country.....which consciously defined itself differently from "old Europe" into another shoddy wannabe imperial power began at the close of the 19th century, just as the International Jews within the country consolidated their power in the USA, through the vehicle of cypto-Jews.........and European Rothschild banking capital.

The USA played a very critical logistical role in sustaining the German war machine via Holland and Sweden, without which Germany would have had to sue for peace by the spring 1915. The USA also sustained the Entente Cordial, but more openly.........without which they would have sued for peace much earlier.

American finance and logistical support sustained the Great war for 4 years and the death of 9 million people. The Great war certainly would not have continued for four years because of some mysterious German super human qualities.........modern technology based wars increasingly rely less on HUMAN quality and talent.

The same game with WWII but involving the whole world to a greater extent.....and the death of 58 million people.

Since that time the USA has attempted to increase the size and power of its empire.

Often this involves putting pro-American puppets into power in a country, through whom a far greater range of American policies can be implemented there.

This was clearly done in the Middle East after WWII replacing European influence with American influence, where men such as Nasser, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were products of the USA.

And so it continues into other parts of the world, and also in Malaysia.

Prosperous, peaceful 'Moslem countries', like Malaysia, are not popular with the CIA and its friends.(What about Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Gulf countries?.........I think aang its more accurate to say that the CIA likes to control and run countries using stray marginal dogs)

On 20 December 2011, we learn that China and Malaysia have agreed to advance military ties.

And he is chief of the Free Syrian Army.(a Libyan heads a Syrian resistance group?)

2.As Russia and China have pointed out, Syria is being attacked by gangs made up of foreigners.(....to Syria, who have no emotional, patriotic links to Syria, but are hired by the CIA.....mercenaries, facilitated with full knowledge by the Erdogan government of Doenme Turkey)

3. Voltaire Network collected eyewitness testimonies from those who survived an armed attack by a foreign gangs.

They describe them as being Iraqis, Jordanians, Libyans and Pashtun (Afghanistan-Pakistan). (In any given society you there will always exist stray fuck dogs of say 1-5% who will work for a foreign master.....for money....for patronage, regardless of the nature of the work. The main challenge is to identify these fuck dogs, and their network, their MO, their systems and expose them)

4. Certain Arab newspapers have discussed the infiltration into Syria of 600 to 1,500 fighters from the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya, renamed Al Qaeda in Libya since November 2007.

5.Abdel Hakim Belhaj was the companion of Osama Bin Laden.

Belhaj is historic leader of Al Qaeda in Libya.

NATO allowed him to become military governor of Tripoli.

6.Turkish newspapers report that Belhaj is on the Turkish-Syrian border.

7.Al Qaeda are the CIA's mercenaries.(Fuck dogs)

8. In the Spanish royalist newspaper ABC, on 17 December 2011, Daniel Iriarte describes coming across Libyans in Syria.

9. One of them is Mahdi al-Harati, a Libyan who lived in Ireland before joining Al Qaeda.

He became deputy to Abdel Hakim Belhaj.

He commanded the Al Qaeda group that besieged and attacked the Rixos hotel in Tripoli; he was being briefed by French officers on the ground.

He is now in Syria.

10. The Free Syrian Army is overseen by at least 600 "volunteers" from Al Qaeda in Libya.

The entire operation is run by Abdel Hakim Belhaj in person with the help of Erdogan's Turkish government.

11.Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar revealed on 9 December 2011 that Abdel Hakim Belhaj was suspected of complicity in the attacks of 11 March 2004 in Madrid, an event that put an end to Aznar’s political career.

12. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the think tank headed by former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold, publicly voice their doubts about the current CIA strategy to place Islamists in power throughout North Africa.

....How does a thief ask a well armed murderer, who is part funded by a foreign power to listen to the thief's orders and behave?

It is not possible. More than likely given the intrinsic animal behavior of humans that the murderer will end up controlling the thief, by hook and crook methods (the job description of the ISI)............I am familiar with these types of people, how they think and how they operate for over two decades.....their little faggotty games.

The Pakistan military as with many banana republic military's is a law unto itself, which has been considerably courted and rewarded by gora sahib JEWSA since 1954, and by Bilaat Sahib since 1947. The Pakistan military operates for itself, and for gora sahib whose geo-strategic orders the Pakistan military has carried out both covertly and overtly in Pakistan, South Asia, West Asia and in the Gulf where they protect many of the Arab states.

Its a bit ironical and rich therefore, that the Pakistan military should charge powerless puppet of the USA, Zardari bhen, with conspiring against the state, when in REALITY the Pakistan military is the biggest national threat, and treacherous tool against the fundamental interests of Pakistan.

Its a bit ironical and rich also, that the Pakistan military should charge powerless puppet of the USA, Zardari bhen, with conspiring against the state, when it is the Pakistani military which killed Zardari's wife in a highly ritualized way, and then brought unpopular liked by nobody political nonentity Zardari into power through the services of the ISI. Thinking, hoping, and calculating that the Pakistan military could easily control such a man. But even a thief has ambitions, and some dignity.

As this episode shows Zardari cannot bite his masters hand in the process of gaining permanent power in Pakistan. The USA will not do anything that which is uncertain to undermine one of its most valuable assets in Asia, which incidentally has been rewarded with a favorable status with NATO. You have to do decades of long hard gora JEWSA ass kissing to be given such a title. Zardari has no political base in Pakistan even, within the rest of the non-military society of Pakistan. Zardari has no gifts to offer Pakistan, besides being married to Benazir Bhutto, and known as Mr. 10%.

From such a weak position of political reality, to take on the Pakistan military was always a foolish proposition.

The idea of controlling the military by civilian governments EFFECTIVELY is universally good. We only have to look at North Korea and the JEWSA to see what an out of control military can do to society generally.

The idea of controlling ones own military through the hoped for cooperation of a foreign power is out right dangerous and traitorous.......Mir Jafar/Mir Sadiq.

That Zardari should seek to stay in power for ever through the good offices of the JEWSA is absurd. He is an utter failure as president, and this FACT should be faced and realized. 90% of Pakistanis hate Zardari. Zardari's clownish performance as President isn't going to improve with a guaranteed backing of the malicious JEWSA. The country's situation isn't going to improve with Zardari at the helm permanently.

Zardari and his nefarious kleptocracy must go soon. But who will replace him?

Imran Khan, with his ex-Jewish wife and two Jewish sons (David Headley), with the backing of the Pakistan military? He has a stronger character, is Punjabi and of the right stock, but.........he is a product of the West where he gives his soundbites, meets his social circles when out of the country and HAS NEVER HAD POWER IN PAKISTAN BEFORE, save his one parliamentary seat. If by some Hitlerian miracle he should come to power with the backing of the ISI, he's going to be manipulated and played by the Pakistani military given his political naivety.

There after Imran Khan will be interviewed by David Frost, the preferred confession box of the favored Anglicized Pakistani elite, where just two years into power he will have a sorry look, haggled by the all powerful military, with no real power in Pakistan..........certainly not in defense and security, and certainly not in foreign policy. Just another civilian front for the chaudi chutia chamar chamcha coolie Pakistan military.

The letter was issued in relation to the coup memo, in which Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is said to have sought US military aid in ousting the Pakistani military leadership, promising to replace them with more pro-US officials.

Pakistan’s military says the letter, which was confirmed delivered to Admiral Michael Mullen, is authentic, and they insist it is an effort to undermine morale in the military and drive a wedge between the public and the Army.

19.12.11

....Gilani, at least on this point is right, there IS no room for military rule in Pakistan, ever again.

The Pakistan military through the careful guidance of the British Raj created ISI since 1948 have been the main sourceof fundamental and dire strategic mistakes that have incrementally taken the great nation of Pakistan down the road of failure after failure..........to failed state number das (as of 2011).

The rent a crowd fundies who canvass for the Pakistan military are but puppets who are also in addition a major part of the problem in Pakistan.

Of course such supreme truths could have come from a better source than a PM whose shadow-in-purda boss conspired with a foreign entity to stay in power for ever, based on the corrupt largess of the USA, even despite the fact that 90% of Pakistanis hate Zardari no end for obvious reasons. How does one justify staying in power through malicious devious means when the masses do not want them?

The rally was seen chiefly as an expression of support for the military after the US attack on a pair of military bases on November 26, with clerics also bringing up the “coup memo” from the Zardari government seeking to oust much of the military’s leadership and replace them with more pro-US officials.

Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani has attempted to shrug off rumors of a coup, dismissing both the allegations against Zardari and growing speculation that the military may move to oust him, saying there is “no room for a martial law in Pakistan.”

Pakistan’s military has a long history of coups, and while Gen. Parvez Kayani, the current military chief, has shown a rare level of opposition to military intervention in politics the growing split seems liable to provoke a reaction, if not from him, then from another top military official.

Russia MUST learn to be more proactive at least in these theaters, and not be so shy.

_________________

'Russia to stop any attack on Iran'

By presstv.com

Russia will try to stop any military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as any threat to the Islamic Republic is a problem for Moscow, a Russian military expert tells Press TV.

Vladimir Yevseyev, the director of the Russian Center for Socio-Political Studies, told Press TV on Saturday that “a military attack against Tehran will be a serious problem for Russia, because Caucasus and Central Asia are strategic regions for Russia.”

He also described the downing of a US spy drone by Iran's Army a great achievement, saying the United States has violated Iran's airspace which is against the international law.

Yevseyev added that Russia will also intercept any drones if they want to enter the Russian territory, noting that Russia can use the Iranian experience in downing the US drone.

He also called for closer cooperation between Tehran and Moscow to solve the regional problems.

Iranian Army's electronic warfare unit successfully brought down the US RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft with minimal damage on Sunday, December 4, 2011. The aircraft was flying over the northeastern Iran city of Kashmar, some 225 kilometers (140 miles) away from the Afghan border.

On December 6, two US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the drone had been part of a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) espionage mission, involving the US intelligence community stationed in Afghanistan.

They said the reconnaissance capability of the drone enabled it to gather information from inside Iran by flying along Afghanistan's border with the Islamic Republic.

The RQ-170 is designed and developed by the US Lockheed Martin Company.

15.12.11

....Always good to see state policy being discussed by properly qualified people with the right credentials on a consensus basis, rather than by a cabal of closed shop generals in a Corps commanders meet.

We can look at the problem of Pakistan--USA "misunderstanding" from what happened in late November 2011.

Or from the problems that arose subsequently from the relationship set in late 2001/2002, by Mossad Busharaf.

Or from the late 1970's when the Pakistan military chose extremist Jihadi groups with the most colorful OTT leaders as the main tool for promoting complicated and delicate Pakistani state policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India......with the active backing and funding of the USA. Seriously speaking what was one expecting to achieve with psycho Hekmatyar who switched between the KGB/CIA/ISI or a one eyed religious teacher of very little stature. To be sure they fitted the Third World requirements of the USA, but certainly not Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Or from 1954, when Pakistan accepted a $1 billion aid package, largely military orientated, and entered into a deep close relationship with the USA......without thinking of the long term consequences of such a relationship.

The USA is a hyper-power run by Jews.

The proposals provided below are HALF-MEASURES and pretty GENERAL, lacking in detail in terms of implementation and outcome objectives.

Moving away from the USA is not an easy matter.

Any move in that direction necessarily means greater reliance and closer relationships with India, and of course China. This so called conference of experts, from what I have read has not addressed this counter-balance measure.

The arrangements being reconsidered by the Pakistani government include two key policies: allowing the transit of supplies through Pakistan to U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan and providing logistics support for occupying forces in Afghanistan and U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region.

This latest decision to reconfigure those arrangements was the result of a two-day conference attended by Pakistani officials and envoys from around the world with the explicit purpose of evaluating Pakistani cooperation with the U.S. in light of the November attack and a generally poor relationship.

The envoys also recommended Pakistan work to repatriate the over 3.5 million Afghan refugees still living in Pakistan.

Other notable conclusions coming from the conference were an effort to seek a formal apology from the U.S. for the November attack on Pakistani soldiers, firm guarantees that Pakistani sovereignty will be respected in the future. So far, the Obama administration has refused to formally apologize and has done everything to ensure further disintegration of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.

Israeli run Islamists through the CIA and Western Intelligence. Look for the introduction of some strange new "Islamic Laws" which aren't actually very Islamic in Egypt meant to divide and destroy and discredit Egypt as a cohesive secular modern society.

Israel, the USA and NATO want Moslem countries to be backward, weak and divided.Israel has always seen Egypt as its main Arab enemy.Israel is now happy.Egypt has now voted for the Islamists.The Islamists will ensure that Egypt loses tourists and inward investment.The Islamists will ensure that the country is deeply divided - Islamists against Christians, Islamists against the military, Islamists against liberals, Islamists against Islamists.Reportedly, the Muslim Brotherhood is run by the CIA and its friends.

Whenever America's two-faced foreign policy stands exposed to the world, the military's first response is always to send forth a highly decorated spokesman, to feign hurt feelings that people would ever doubt American military integrity. The backtracking usually comes later, when war crimes and duplicity stand fully exposed, revealing American CIA or military covert actions which are indistinguishable from other terrorism.

The direct action missions and irregular warfare actions simulate terrorism, which means that innocent people must die in the process. To pretend otherwise is asking that we ignore reality itself. The attack upon the Pakistani border post was clearly one of those "tickling" incidents mentioned by former CIA director Michael Hayden, intended to reveal what Pakistani reactions would be to small air attacks, as a prelude to bigger incursions inside Pakistan. Our relationship with Pakistan has degenerated into an ongoing psywar against each other.

How can the US really try to undermine Pakistan's "clout" in Afghanistan if their help is needed to bring order to Afghanistan? Generals tend to be braggarts, who often express their disgust with the rest of the male population for perceived weaknesses. Listening to them is like watching the scene from Patton where he slaps the shell-shocked soldier for cowardice. US military spokesmen will have a much more difficult job convincing the world that our intentions are above-board and sincere in the future. The deceptions upon which this war has operated are being revealed one by one. Each revelation undercuts American claims of integrity and denials of evil intentions. Until the Beast stands fully exposed to the world he will continue to hide behind the Hollywood "good guy" image that the Pentagon has carefully crafted over the years.

The US military chief has said there still are sanctuaries for militants in Pakistan and that the country’s influence in Afghanistan needs to be tackled.

“In Pakistan, the sanctuary for these militants persists. We have to work hard to end its influence on our Afghan mission,” Gen Martin Dempsey said on Friday.

The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff also said that Pakistan’s decision to block Nato supply routes reflected badly on its relationship with the United States.

The US military chief indicated that the US was already working on alternative routes to reduce its dependence on Pakistan for supplying its troops in Afghanistan. “We can change the percentages of our reliance upon the Pakistani line of communication.

“We can adjust and we can get it done. It will be more expensive. It will be time-consuming but we have the time to do it,” he said.

“The real problem for me is not the cost. What is troubling me is that they would close the route. What it says about the (US-Pakistan) relationship is troubling for us.”

The general insisted that those who were burning Nato fuel trucks in Pakistan were doing little harm to the US. “When they torch fuel, it is not our fuel they are torching. We do not pay for fuel until it gets to us.”

Gen Dempsey claimed the US military had achieved its “intended purpose” in Afghanistan by reversing the Taliban momentum. He noted that a recent loya jirga in Afghanistan had emphasised the need for establishing a long-term relationship with the United States “in a very encouraging way”.

Gen Dempsey insisted that the Nato attack on two Pakistani border posts was not deliberate. “We did not do it intentionally, regrettably the Pakistani military believes that we did,” he said when asked what caused the attack.

“It is incomprehensible to me, based on our relationship, that they believe so, but they do.”

In an earlier statement, he had said the US-Pakistan ties were troubled, but repairable. His latest remarks at Washington’s Atlantic Council, however, reflected a growing disenchantment with an ally that once played a key role in implementing America’s cold war strategy for Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s military said the Nov 26 attack was unprovoked but the US and Afghan officials have claimed that Nato troops were responding to fire from the Pakistani side of the border.

Expressing his exasperation with the Pakistani perception, Gen Dempsey asked: “What in the world we will hope to gain from it? We did not do it intentionally.”

The US military chief said he had spoken to Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who was his classmate at a military college in the United States, about the incident and was now waiting for the investigation to conclude. He has also held similar discussions with Nato commanders in Afghanistan, he added.

“We have chosen patience and we are asking them (the Pakistanis) to show some patience too.”

Asked why the Pakistanis were claiming that the attack on their military posts was intentional, Gen Dempsey said: “We are kind of the victims of our own success sometimes. The rest of the world sees (us) as all-knowing, all-seeing and completely precise”.

But this was not always true as “the warfare is not just ugly. It is messy. It is chaotic and it is unpredictable. We are waiting for the investigation to tell us what really happened.”

The killings have served to upend Washington’s attempts to improve ties with Islamabad, which worsened after the secret US raid into Abbottabad to kill Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May. The Nov 26 incident also threatened to undermine US efforts to stabilise the region before a planned troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.

....Dr. Professor Max Weber the 19th century Sociologist who said roughly that the modern State is a rational actor, and the State is a neutral faceless machine which operates for the optimal good of all.

Professor John Rawls in his "Theory of Justice" said "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." roughly translated that rational logical humans in any given post-modern society, in the majority will always opt for what is in the best interests of ALL, which will determine how society operates itself ultimately.

Clearly such academic giants and philosophers hadn't heard about closed elite groups, and how they manipulate the system for their specific advantage over and above the rest of the 99%......and even to the detriment of the nation which facilitated their rise in the first place.

It is a shame, and certainly not a source of joy that the USA is run by such utterly confused, compromised, morons........a nation that manages to turn former ardent allies into enemies.

Just sad.

__________________________

Confrontation on the Frontiers of China and Russia

Obama Raises the Military Stakes

By James Petras in Information Clearing House

After suffering major military and political defeats in bloody ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and failing to buttress long-standing clients in Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia and witnessing the disintegration of puppet regimes in Somalia and South Sudan, the Obama regime has learned nothing: instead he has turned toward greater military confrontation with global powers, namely Russia and China.

Obama has adopted a provocative offensive military strategy on the very frontiers of both China and Russia going from defeat to defeat on the periphery of world power and not satisfied with running treasury-busting deficits in pursuit of empire building against economically weak countries, Obama has embraced a policy of encirclement and provocations against China, the world’s second largest economy and the US’s most important creditor, and Russia the European Union’s principle oil and gas provider and the world’s second most powerful nuclear weapons power.

This paper addresses the Obama regime’s highly irrational and world threatening escalation of imperial militarism.

We examine the global military, economic and domestic political context that gives rise to these policies.

We then examine the multiple points of conflict and intervention in which Washington is engaged, from Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia and beyond.

We will then analyze the rationale for military escalation against Russia and China as part of a new ‘offensive moving beyond the Arab world (Syria, Libya) and in the face of the declining economic position of the EU and the US in the global economy.

We will then outline the strategies of a declining empire nurtured on perpetual wars, facing global economic decline, domestic discredit and a working population facing long-term large scale rollback of basic social programs.

The Turn from Militarism in the Periphery to Global Military Confrontation

November 2011 is a moment of great historical import. Obama declared two major policy positions, both having tremendous strategic consequences affecting competing world powers. Obama pronounced a policy of military encirclement of China based on stationing a maritime, aerial armada facing the Chinese coast. A policy designed to weaken and disrupt China’s access to raw materials and commercial and financial ties in Asia.

Obama’s declaration that Asia is the priority region for US military expansion, base building and economic alliances was directed against China, challenging Beijing in its own backyard. Obama’s iron fist policy statement, addressed to the Australian Parliament, was crystal clear in defining US imperial goals. "Our enduring interests in the region [Asia Pacific] demands our enduring presence in this region … The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay … As we end today’s wars [the defeats and retreats from Iraq and Afghanistan]… I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia Pacific a top priority … As a result reduction in US defense spending will not … come at the expense of the Asia Pacific” (CNN.com, Nov. 16, 2011).

The precise nature of what Obama called our “presence and mission” was underlined by the military agreement with Australia to dispatch warships, warplanes and 2500 marines to the northern most city of Australia (Darwin) facing China. Secretary of State Clinton has spent the better part of 2011 making highly provocative overtures, to Asian countries that have maritime border conflicts with China.

Clinton has forcibly injected the US into these disputes, encouraging and exacerbating the demands of Vietnam, Philippines, and Brunei in the South China Sea. Even more seriously Washington is bolstering its military ties and sales with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea as well as increasing the presence of battleships, nuclear submarines and over flights of war planes along China’s coastal waters. In line with the policy of military encirclement and provocation, the Obama-Clinton regime is promoting Asian multi-lateral trade agreements that exclude China and privilege US multi-national corporations, bankers and exporters, dubbed the “Trans-Pacific partnership”.It currently includes mostly smaller countries, but Obama has hopes of enticing Japan and Canada to join …Obama’s presence at the APEC meeting of East Asian leader and his visit to Indonesia in November 2011 all revolve around efforts to secure US hegemony. Obama-Clinton hope to counter the relative decline of US economic links in the face of the geometrical growth of trade and investment ties between East Asia and China. (with greater military power...and presence, but obviously this will not work)

A most recent example of Obama-Clinton’s delusional but destructive efforts to deliberately disrupt China’s economic ties in Asia, is taking place in Burma/Myanmar. Clinton’s December 2011 visit to Burma was preceded by a decision by the Thein Sein regime to suspend a China Power Investment funded dam in the North of the country. According to official confidential documents released by WilkiLeaks the “Burmese ngo’s which organized and led the campaign against the dam were heavily funded by the US government”(Financial Times, Dec. 2, 2011, p. 2). This and other provocative activity and Clinton’s speeches condemning Chinese “tied aid” pale in comparison with the long-term large scale interests which link Burma with China. China is Burma’s biggest trading partner and investor, including six other dam projects. Its companies are carving new highways and rail lines across the country opening southwestern China up for Burmese products and China is building oil pipelines and ports. There is a powerful dynamic of mutual economic interests that will not be disturbed by one dispute (FT, December 2, 2011, p.2).

Clinton’s critique of China’s billion dollar investments in Burma’s infrastructure is one of the most bizarre in world history, coming in the aftermath of Washington’s eight year military presence in Iraq which destroyed $500 billion dollars of infrastructures, according to Baghdad official estimates. Only a delusional administration could imagine that rhetorical flourishes, a three day visit and the bankrolling of an NGO is an adequate counter-weight to deep economic ties linking Burma to China.(eloquent and precise........China's relationship with Myanmar is not sinister, but neighborly and natural)

The same delusional posture underlies the entire repertoire of policies informing the Obama regimes’ efforts to displace China’s predominant role in Asia. While each policy adopted by the Obama regime in themselves do no present an immediate threat to peace, the cumulative impact of all the policy pronouncements and the projections of military power add up to an all out comprehensive effort to isolate, intimidate and degrade China’s rise as a regional and global power.

Military encirclement and alliances, exclusion of China in proposed regional economic associations, partisan intervention in regional maritime disputes, positioning technologically advanced warplanes, are all aimed to undermine China’s competitiveness and to compensate for US economic inferiority via closed political and economic networks.

Clearly White House military and economic moves and Congressional anti-China demagogy are aimed at weakening China’s trading position and forcing its business minded leaders into privileging US banking and business interests over and above their own enterprises. Pushed to its limits, Obama’s prioritizing a big military push could lead to a catastrophic rupture in US Chinese economic relations. This would result in dire consequences, especially but not exclusively, on the US economy and particularly its financial system. China holds over $1.5 trillion dollars in US debt, mainly Treasury Notes and each year purchases from $200 to $300 billion in new issues, a vital source in financing the US deficit. If Obama provokes a serious threat to China’s security interests and Beijing is forced to respond, it will not be military but economic retaliation: the sell-off of a few hundred billion dollars in T-notes and the curtailment of new purchases of US debt. The US deficit will skyrocket, its credit ratings will descend to ‘junk’, and the financial system will ‘tremble onto collapse’. Interest rates to attract new buyers of US debt will approach double digits. Chinese exports to the US will suffer and losses will incur due to the devaluation of the T-notes in Chinese hands. But China has been diversifying its markets around the world and its huge domestic market could probably absorb most of what China loses abroad.

While Obama strays across the Pacific to mount its military threat to China and strives to economically isolate it in Asia, the US economic presence is fading in what used to be its “backyard”. According to one journalist, “China is the only show for Latin America” (Financial Times, Nov. 23, 2011, p.6). China has displaced the US and the EU as Latin America’s principle trading partner; Beijing has poured billions in new investments and provides low interest loans.

China’s trade with India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and Vietnam is increasing far faster than that of the US. The US effort to build an imperial centered security alliance in Asia is based on fragile economic foundations.

Even Australia(wanna be US gofer in Asia.....after the UK, Australian stars predominate in Hollywood), the anchor and linchpin of the US military thrust in Asia, is heavily dependent on mineral exports to China. Any military interruption would send the Australian economy into a tailspin. The US economy is in no condition to replace China as a market for Asian or Australian commodity and manufacturing exports.

The Asian countries must be acutely aware that there is no future growth tying themselves to a declining highly militarized empire.

Obama and Clinton deceive themselves if they think they can entice Asia into a long-term alliance. The Asian’s are simply using the Obama regime’s friendly overtures as a ‘tactical device’, a negotiating ploy to leverage better terms in securing maritime and territorial boundaries. Washington is delusional if it believes that it can convince Asia to break long-term large scale lucrative economic ties to China in order to join an exclusive economic association with dubious prospects. Any such ‘reorientation’ of Asia, from China to the US, would require more than the presence of a naval and airborne armada pointed at China. It would require the total restructuring of the Asian countries’ economies, class structure and political and military elite.

The most powerful economic entrepreneurial groups in Asia have deep and growing ties with China/Hong Kong especially among the dynamic transnational Chinese business elites in the region. A turn toward Washington entails a massive counter-revolution which substitutes ‘traders’ for entrepreneurs. A turn to the US would require a dictatorial elite willing to disrupt strategic trading and investment linkages,displacing millions of workers and professionals.

As much as some US trained Asian military officers, economists and former Wall Street financiers and billionaires might seek to ‘balance’ a US military presence, with Chinese economic power, they must realize that ultimately, advantage resides in working out an Asian solution.

The age of Asian “comprador capitalists”, willing to sell out national industry and sovereignty in exchange for privileged access to US markets, is ancient history.

Whatever the boundless enthusiasm for conspicuous consumerism and Western lifestyles, which Asia and China’s new rich mindlessly celebrate, whatever the embrace of inequalities and savage capitalist exploitation of labor, there is recognition that the past history of US and European dominance precluded the growth and enrichment of an indigenous bourgeoisie and middle class.

The speeches and pronouncements of Obama and Clinton are a mixture of nostalgia for a past of neo-colonial overseers and comprador collaborators and a no-brainer. Their strain for political realism in finally recognizing Asia as the economic pivot of the present world order. But they in turn are delusional in imagining that military prepotency and projections of armed force will reduce China to a marginal player in the region.

Obama’s Escalation of Confrontation with Russia The Obama regime has launched a major frontal military thrust on Russia’s borders:

(i) The US has moved forward missile sites and Air Force bases in Poland, Romania, Turkey, Spain, Czech Republic and Bulgaria: Patriot PAC-3 anti-aircraft missile complexes in Poland; advanced radar AN/TPY-2 in Turkey; several missile (SM-3 IA) loaded warships in Spain are among the prominent weapons encircling Russia, most only minutes away from it strategic heartland.

(ii) Secondly, the Obama regime has mounted an all-out effort to secure and expand US military bases in Central Asia among former Soviet republics.

(iii) Thirdly, Washington via NATO has launched major economic and military operations against Russia’s major trading partners in North Africa and the Middle East. The NATO war against Libya which ousted the Gadhafi regime has paralyzed or nullified multi-billion dollar Russian oil and gas investments, arms sales and substituted a NATO puppet for a friendly regime. The UN-NATO economic sanctions and US-Israeli clandestine terrorist activity aimed at Iran has undermined Russia’s lucrative billion dollar nuclear trade and joint oil ventures. NATO, including Turkey and backed by the Gulf monarchical dictatorships, have implemented harsh sanctions and funded terrorist assaults on Syria, Russia’s last remaining ally in the region and sole port (Tartus) facing the Mediterranean Sea.

Russia’s collaboration with NATO in weakening its economic and security position is a product of the monumental misreading of NATO and especially Obama’s imperial policies.

(Well professor there are various factors for this.....its not exactly the first time that the Russian state has made monumental mistakes, but later learnt to rectify them. Even a chess playing nation like Russia run by former KGB agents can make mistakes, the issue is how quickly they learn from their mistakes and what action they subsequently take to rectify these mistakes.

Russia is still hampered by a secret Jewish government which came to control the nation from October 1918......unto the present. This secret Jewish government subsequently killed the Royal Romanov dynasty including children; killed the traditional Russian intelligentsia; killed the traditional Russian economic elite; killed most of the Russian clergy; the Russian aristocracy obviously....for some delusional Jewish utopia under Socialism. 70 million Soviets died between 1918--1991, under Jewish rule (Alexander Solzhenitsyn).....a process that is beginning in the USA NOW. 5000 churches destroyed but not a single synagogue.....criticism of Jews made into a capital punishment.....and the country run by secret and not so secret Jewish leaders unto the present Dmitry Medvedev....explains to us why "strange" contradictory poorly judged policies have been adopted by Russia since especially 1991, which seem more like national self immolation and stupid. The so called Oligarchs in Russia who looted the country and destroyed it, with some taking their wealth to Israel, Switzerland, London and other such Jewish slush fund destinations are mostly Jewish.

The Russian state thus has been attempting to balance the requirements of the International Jewish tribe, with the superficial needs of the Russian state and people.

Finally what faulted the Russian chess players who were not Jewish, was the sheer charm of the cosmopolitan urbane Americans. The invitation by GW Bush to Putin to stay in the Crawford ranch; the playing up of Occidentalism/Western we are a white Christian club.....right-wing Anders Brevik type subtle play on the Christian Russians reeling from the sheer misery of Jewish Socialist rule of 73 years, especially in Western centric places like St. Petersburg..........a poor lonely man in dire straights naturally seeks friendship........ditto Admiral Mullen and Kiyani ......."kuta whisperer" )

President Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mistakenly assumed (like Gorbachev and Yeltsin before them) that backing US-NATO policies against Russia’s trading partners would result in some sort of “reciprocity”: US dismantling its offensive “missile shield” on its frontiers and support for Russia’s admission into the World Trade Organization.

Medvedev following his liberal pro-western illusions fell into line and backed US-Israeli sanctions against Iran, believing the tales of a “nuclear weapons programs”. Then Lavrov fell for the NATO line of “no fly zones to protect Libyan lives” and voted in favor, only to feebly “protest”, much too late, that NATO was “exceeding its mandate” by bombing Libya into the Stone Age and installing a pro-NATO puppet regime of rogues and fundamentalists ("al-CIA-duh").

(Lavrov looks Jewish. Medvedev is Jewish)

Finally when the US drove a cleaver in Russia’s heartland by pushing ahead with an all-out effort to install missile sites 5 minutes from Moscow and organized mass and armed assaults on Syria, did Medvedev-Lavrov awake from their stupor and opposed UN sanctions.

Medvedev threatened to abandon the nuclear missile reduction treaty (START) and to place medium range missiles 5 minutes from Berlin, Paris and London.

Medvedev-Lavrov’s policy of consolidation and co-operation based on Obama’s rhetoric of “resetting relations” invited aggressive empire building: each capitulation led to a further aggression. As a result Russia is surrounded by missiles on its western frontier; it has suffered losses among its major trading partners in the Middle East and faces US bases in southwest Asia.

Belatedly Russian officials have moved to replace the delusional Medvedev for the realist Putin, as next President.

This shift to a political realist has predictably evoked a wave of hostility toward Putin in all the Western (Jewish-owned) media.

Obama’s aggressive policies to isolate Russia by undermining independent regimes has, however, not affected Russia’s status as a nuclear weapons power. It has only heightened tensions in Europe and perhaps ended any future chance of peaceful nuclear weapons reduction or efforts to secure a UN Security Council consensus on issues of peaceful conflict resolution.

Washington has turned Russia from a pliant client to a major adversary. Putin looks to deepening and expanding ties with the East, namely China, in the face of threats from the West.

The combination of Russian advanced weapons technology and energy resources and Chinese dynamic manufacturing and industrial growth are more than a match for crises ridden EU-USA economies wallowing in stagnation.

Obama’s military confrontation toward Russia will greatly prejudice access to Russian raw materials and definitively foreclose any long-term strategic security agreement which would be useful in lowering the deficit and reviving the US economy.

Between Realism and Delusion: Obama’s Strategic Realignment

Obama’s recognition that the present and future center of political and economic power is moving inexorably to Asia, is a flash of political realism. After a lost decade of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in military adventures on the margins and periphery of world politics, Washington has finally discovered that is not where the fate of nations, especially Great Powers, will be decided, except in a negative sense – of bleeding resources over lost causes.

Obama’s new realism and priorities apparently are now focused on Southeast and Northeast Asia, where dynamic economies flourish, markets are growing at a double digit rate, investors are ploughing tens of billions in productive activity and trade is expanding at three times the rate of the US and the EU.

But Obama’s ‘New Realism’ is blighted by entirely delusional assumptions, which totally undermine any real effort to realign US policy.

In the first place Obama’s effort to ‘enter’ into Asia is via a military build-up not through a sharpening and upgrading of US economic competitiveness. What does the US produce for the Asian countries that will enhance its market share? Apart from arms, airplanes and agriculture, the US has few industries which are competitive. The US would have to totally re-orient its economy, upgrade skilled labor, and transfer billions from “security” and militarism to applied innovations.

But Obama works within the current military-Zionist-financial complex: he knows no other and is incapable of breaking with it.

(Obama is believed to have been recruited by the CIA, within which it is alleged his own mother worked for in Asia....and is a love child between her and another black CIA agent. This is reminiscent of the KGB installing its puppet in the Kremlin especially in the 1980's prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991)

Secondly, Obama-Clinton operate under the delusion that the US can exclude China or minimize its role in Asia, a policy that is undercut by the huge and growing investment and presence of all the major US multi-national corporations in China , who use it as an export platform to Asia and the rest of the world.

(duh!!!)

The US military build-up and policy of “intimidation” will only force China to downgrade its role as creditor, financing the US debt; a policy China can pursue because the US market, while is still important, is becoming less so, as China expands its presence in its domestic, Asian, Latin American and European markets.

What appeared to be New Realism is now the recycling of Old Delusions: the idea that the US can return to being the Pacific Power it was after World War Two.

The US ‘returns’ to the Pacific in our times with a crippled economy, with the overhang of an over-militarized economy ($1.5 trillion security budget unofficially), with strategic handicaps: over the past decade it has been at the beck and call of Israel’s fifth column (the Israel “lobby”).

The entire US political class is devoid of common, practical sense and national purpose.

(Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachman...and the rest of the freak show clowns talking through their backsides)

They are immersed in troglodyte debates over “indefinite detentions” and “mass immigrant expulsion”.

(IRRELEVANT SKEWED MINUTIAE.....OF/BY DUMFUCKS)

Worse, all are on the payrolls of private corporations who sell in the US and invest in China.

(DUH...DUH DUH DUH)

Why would Obama abjure costly wars in the unprofitable periphery and then practice the same military metaphysics at the dynamic center of the world economy?

Does he and his advisers believe he is the Second Coming of Admiral Commodore (Perry)whose 19th century warships opened Asia to Western trade?

(Western colonialism won't be repeated in Asia again, as it was in the 18th and 19th century by the European powers.....history doesn't always repeat itself)

Does he believe that military alliances will be the first stage to a subsequent period of privileged economic entry?

Does Obama believe that his regime can blockade China, as Washington did to Japan in the lead up to World War Two? It’s too late.

China is much more central to the world economy, too vital even to the financing of the US debt, too bonded up with the Forbes Five Hundred multi-national corporations.

To provoke China, to even fantasize about economic “exclusion” to bring down China, is to pursue policies which will totally disrupt the world economy and that means first and foremost the US economy!

Conclusion Obama’s ‘crackpot realism’, his shift from wars in the Islamic world to military confrontation in Asia, has no intrinsic worth and extraordinary extrinsic costs. The military methods and economic goals are totally incompatible and beyond the capacity of the US, as it is currently constituted. Washington’s policies will not ‘weaken’ Russia or China, even less intimidate them. Instead it will encourage both to adopt more adversarial positions, making it less likely that they lend a hand to Obama’s sequential wars.

Already Russia has sent warships to its Syrian port, refused to support an arms embargo against Syria and Iran and (in retrospect) criticized the NATO war against Libya.

China and Russia have far too many strategic ties with the world economy to suffer any great losses from a series of US military outposts and “exclusive” alliances. Russia can aim just as many deadly nuclear missiles at the West as the US can mount from its bases in Eastern Europe.

In other words, Obama’s military escalation will not change the nuclear balance of power, but will bring Russia and China into a closer and deeper alliance. Gone are the days of Kissinger-Nixon’s “divide and conquer” strategy pitting US-Chinese trade agreements against Russian arms. Washington has a totally exaggerated significance of the current maritime spats between China and its neighbors. What unites them in economic terms is far more important in the medium and long-run.

China’s Asian economic ties will erode any tenuous military links to the US. Obama’s “crackpot realism”, views the world market through military lenses. Military arrogance toward Asia has led to a rupture with Pakistan its most compliant client regime in South Asia. NATO deliberately killed 24 soldiers and thumbed their nose at the Pakistan generals while China and Russia condemned the attack and gained influence.

In the end, the military and exclusionary posture to China will fail. Washington will overplay its hand and frighten its business oriented erstwhile Asian partners, who only want to play-off a US military presence to gain tactical economic advantage.

They certainly do not want a new US instigated ‘Cold War’ which divides and weakens dynamic intra-Asian trade and investment. Obama and his minions will quickly learn that Asia’s current leaders do not have permanent allies’ only permanent interests.

In the final analysis, China figures prominently in configuring a new Asia-centric world economy. Washington may claim to have a ‘permanent Pacific presence’ but until it demonstrates it can take care of “basic business at home”, like arranging its own finances and balancing its current account deficits, the US Naval command may end up renting its navy to Asian exporters and shippers, transporting goods between them, and protecting them by pursuing pirates, contra-bandits and narco-traffickers.

Come to think about it, Obama might eventually even lessen the US trade deficit with Asia by renting out the Seventh Fleet to patrol the Straits, instead of wasting US taxpayer money bullying successful Asian economic powers.

_______________________

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, Le Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo. He received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.

About Me

I have been under state surveillance and covert harassment in the UK since 1985, by MI-5 and their gullible friends where ever they are found, and overt harassment with surveillance since march of 1996, when I submitted my final year law degree dissertation, 'The relationship between the state, the security services and the law'.